We recently published a paper comparing the incidence
of adverse outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty
(UKA and TKA). The conclusion of this study, which was in favour
of UKA, was dismissed as “biased” in a review in Cite this article:
Many aspects of total knee arthroplasty have
changed since its inception. Modern prosthetic design, better fixation techniques,
improved polyethylene wear characteristics and rehabilitation, have
all contributed to a large change in revision rates. Arthroplasty
patients now expect longevity of their prostheses and demand functional
improvement to match. This has led to a re-examination of the long-held
belief that mechanical alignment is instrumental to a successful
outcome and a focus on restoring healthy joint kinematics. A combination
of kinematic restoration and uncemented, adaptable fixation may
hold the key to future advances. Cite this article:
We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.